in Re: Kelly Brady ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         ACCEPTED
    12-15-00307-CV
    TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS
    TYLER, TEXAS
    12/16/2015 5:03:28 PM
    Pam Estes
    CLERK
    IN THE
    TWELFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
    TYLER, TEXAS                            FILED IN
    12th COURT OF APPEALS
    TYLER, TEXAS
    12/16/2015 5:03:28 PM
    In Re KELLY BRADY                     PAM ESTES
    Clerk
    Original Proceeding From the
    th
    114 Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas
    PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    William S. Hommel, Jr.
    HOMMEL LAW FIRM
    1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
    Tyler, Texas 75703
    State Bar No. 09934250
    ATTORNEY FOR KELLY BRADY, RELATOR
    ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
    IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
    The following is a complete list of all parties, as well as the names and
    addresses of all counsel.
    PARTIES                                    COUNSEL
    Relator:
    Kelly Brady                                William S. Hommel, Jr.
    1172 Hunters Trail                         Hommel Law Firm
    Flint, TX 75762                            1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
    Tyler, Texas 75703
    Respondent:
    THE HON. CHRISTI KENNEDY                   None
    Smith County Courthouse
    100 N. Broadway, Room 209
    Tyler, Texas 75702
    Real Party in Interest:
    JKS Travel, Inc. dba                       Roger Anderson
    Travel Masters and                         Gillen & Anderson
    Sharon K. Howell                           613 Shelley Park Plaza
    Tyler, Texas 75701
    915 W. Southwest Loop 323
    Tyler, TX 75701
    ii
    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    Index of Authorities ..................................................................................................iv
    Statement of the Case................................................................................................. 1
    Statement of Jurisdiction……………………………………………………………2
    Issues Presented ......................................................................................................... 2
    Statement of Facts ...................................................................................................... 2
    Argument and Authorities.......................................................................................... 4
    Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 8
    Verification .............................................................................................................. 10
    Certificate of Compliance…………………………………………………………11
    Certificate of Service ............................................................................................... 11
    Appendix
    Trial Court’s Order Denying Motion to Disqualify ................................ Tab 1
    Declaration of Kelly Brady……………………………………………...Tab 2
    Emails between Gillen and Brady.……………………………………...Tab 3
    iii
    INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
    CASES
    CSR Ltd. v. Link, 
    925 S.W.2d 591
    , 596 (Tex.1996)………………………………..8
    In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 
    320 S.W.3d 819
    , 824 (Tex. 2010) (orig.
    proceeding)…………………………………………………………………………6
    In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 
    985 S.W.2d 41
    (Tex., 1998)…………………………….6
    In re Gunn, No. 14-13-00566-CV, 
    2013 WL 5631241
    , *2 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] Oct. 15, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam)………….…..5
    In re Louisiana Texas Healthcare Mgmt., L.L.C., 
    349 S.W.3d 688
    , 689 (Tex. App.
    2011)………………………………………………………………………………..4
    In re Mitcham, 
    133 S.W.3d 274
    , 276 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding)..6
    In re 
    Nitla, 92 S.W.3d at 423
    ……………………………………………………….4
    In re Ruvalcaba, 
    2014 WL 508938
    8(Tex. App
    Houston [14th] 2014)…………………………………………………..……………7
    In re Sanders, 
    153 S.W.3d 54
    , 57 (Tex. 2004)………………………………………4
    In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc., 
    22 S.W.3d 331
    , 336 (Tex. 1999)……………………..5
    National Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Godbey, 
    924 S.W.2d 123
    , 133 (Tex.1996)
    (orig. proceeding)…………………………………………………………………...4
    NCNB Texas Nat'l Bank v. Coker, 
    765 S.W.2d 398
    , 400 (Tex.1989)………………4
    iv
    Spears v. Fourth Ct. App., 
    797 S.W.2d 654
    , 656 (Tex. 1990)………………………5
    Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 842 (Tex.1992)………………………………..4
    STATUTES AND RULES
    TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b)(1)……………………………………………….2
    Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct, R. 1.09 (1989)………………………………..5
    v
    STATEMENT OF THE CASE
    This case was filed by Kelly Brady (“Brady”), who worked for Defendant JKS
    Travel, Inc. dba Travel Masters (“Travel Masters”) as a travel consultant from 2008
    to March 13, 2015. Defendant, Sharon K. Howell is the President and CEO of Travel
    Masters.     Brady filed suit on August 27, 2015 seeking an accounting of her
    commissions, breach of contract, a declaration that her non-complete was not
    enforceable, for tortious interference and defamation. The case was assigned to the
    Honorable Christi Kennedy in the 114th District Court in Smith County. After
    learning the identity of defense counsel, Brady filed a motion to disqualify the firm
    of Gillen & Anderson by reason of communications with James Gillen’s in
    connection with his prior representation of Brady regarding the formation of the
    business in which she has worked since her separation of employment from Travel
    Masters. Brady claims she disclosed information to Gillen with are directly related
    to her claims against Howell and Travel Masters. A hearing on the motion to
    disqualify was held on November 6, 2015. On November 19, 2015, Judge Kennedy
    denied the Motion and entered the attached Order. See Appendix, Tab 1.
    Brady seeks relief from Judge Kennedy’s Order. Defense Counsel’s prior
    representation of Brady constitutes a conflict of interest and also is a violation of
    Rule 1.09 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Mandamus is
    appropriate under the circumstances because Judge Kennedy abused her discretion
    1
    in denying Brady’s Motion and because Brady has no adequate remedy by appeal.
    Brady respectfully requests that this Petition be granted and that the Court require
    Judge Kennedy to vacate her prior order and disqualify Gillen & Anderson from its
    representation of Defendants.
    STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
    This Court has jurisdiction over this Petition under TEX. GOV’T CODE §
    22.221(b)(1).
    ISSUES PRESENTED
    First, whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to disqualify
    defense counsel based upon its prior representation of Relator and the disclosure by
    Relator to defense counsel of facts regarding the claims asserted against Defendant
    in the underlying case.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Relator is Kelly Brady; Defendants are JKS Travel, Inc. dba Travel Masters
    and Sharon K. Howell; opposing counsel is Roger Anderson of Gillen & Anderson
    of Tyler, Texas. Brady is a former employee of JKS Travel, Inc. dba Travel
    Masters.
    Relator sued Defendants for a declaratory judgment, for an accounting and for
    tortious interference. The crux of Relator’s claims against Defendants relate to her
    2
    allegation that Travel Masters did not provide her with an accounting of her
    commissions earned and possibly failed to pay commissions properly, as well as her
    claims that Sharon K. Howell has disparaged Brady in an effort to harm her business
    and also caused Brady harm in her divorce proceeding.
    Relator retained the firm of Gillen & Anderson, specifically James Gillen, to
    advise her regarding the formation of her new travel business, 5 Star Travel.
    Relator discussed factual issues with Mr. Gillen which are now the same factual
    allegations which form the basis for Relator’s claims against Travel Masters and
    Howell. These conversations were recounted in Relator’s declaration filed with the
    trial court, which is attached hereto behind Tab 2.         Additionally, Relator has
    attached the emails between herself and Mr. Gillen regarding his representation of
    Relator, which are attached hereto behind Tab 3. The factual basis for Relator’s
    petition are some of the same facts which she disclosed and discussed with Mr.
    Gillen.
    Relator filed a motion asking the trial court to disqualify the firm of Gillen &
    Anderson from further representation of all Defendants because of counsel’s prior
    representation of Relator. At the hearing on the Motion to Disqualify, Relator
    testified to the matters contained in her declaration and specifically testified the she
    3
    disclosed to James Gillen the facts which form the basis for her lawsuit.1 The trial
    court denied the motion to disqualify defense counsel from its representation of
    Defendants. The order denying the motion to disqualify is attached hereto behind
    Tab 1.
    ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
    The denial of a motion to disqualify is reviewable by mandamus. See National
    Medical Enterprises, Inc. v. Godbey, 
    924 S.W.2d 123
    , 133 (Tex.1996); In re
    Louisiana Texas Healthcare Mgmt., L.L.C., 
    349 S.W.3d 688
    , 689 (Tex. App. 2011).
    To obtain mandamus relief, Brady must show that the district court's refusal to
    disqualify Gillen & Anderson as defense counsel in the pending litigation was a clear
    abuse of discretion for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v.
    Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 842 (Tex.1992).
    The movant bears the burden to prove that the attorney should be disqualified.
    See In re Sanders, 
    153 S.W.3d 54
    , 57 (Tex. 2004) (stating the party requesting
    disqualification must demonstrate an opposing lawyer's dual roles as attorney and
    witness will cause the party actual prejudice); In re 
    Nitla, 92 S.W.3d at 423
    (holding
    that the party moving to disqualify opposing counsel who reviewed privileged
    1 The transcript of the hearing on the Motion to Disqualify has been requested from Cassie Condrey, the official
    reporter for the 114th Judicial District Court. Relator will supplement the record as soon as the transcript is
    prepared.
    4
    documents must show actual harm and that disqualification is necessary because the
    trial court lacks any lesser means to remedy the moving party's harm); NCNB Texas
    Nat'l Bank v. Coker, 
    765 S.W.2d 398
    , 400 (Tex.1989) (requiring moving party to
    prove the existence of a prior attorney-client relationship in which the factual matters
    involved were so related to the facts in the pending litigation that it creates a genuine
    threat that confidences revealed to the former counsel will be divulged to the present
    adversary). This burden requires proof of specific facts to meet the exacting standard
    necessary to establish disqualification is required. See: Spears v. Fourth Ct. App.,
    
    797 S.W.2d 654
    , 656 (Tex. 1990).
    The Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct do not determine
    whether counsel is disqualified, but they do provide guidelines and suggest the
    relevant issues courts should consider. Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Godbey, 
    924 S.W.2d 123
    , 132 (Tex. 1996). Even if a lawyer violates a disciplinary rule, however,
    the party requesting disqualification must demonstrate that the opposing lawyer's
    conduct caused actual prejudice that requires disqualification. See: In re Users Sys.
    Servs., Inc., 
    22 S.W.3d 331
    , 336 (Tex. 1999); In re Gunn, No. 14-13-00566-CV,
    
    2013 WL 5631241
    , *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 15, 2013, orig.
    proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam).
    5
    Relator contends that allowing Defendant’s counsel to continue his
    representation of Defendants will violate Rule 1.09 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules
    of Professional Conduct, which provides in pertinent part:
    Without prior consent, a lawyer who personally has formerly
    represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another
    person in a matter adverse to the former client: (3) if it is the same or
    a substantially related matter. See also: In re Epic Holdings, Inc., 
    985 S.W.2d 41
    (Tex., 1998).
    Relator contends that Mr. Anderson’s representation of Defendants is in violation of
    Rule 1.09, which addresses conflicts of interest that arise in representing someone
    who is adverse to a former client. See Tex. Disc. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.09, reprinted
    in Gov't Code tit. 2, subtit. G, app. A, art. 10, § 9. See also, In re Gunn, No. 14-13-
    00566-CV, 
    2013 WL 5631241
    , *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 15, 2013,
    orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam).
    Opposing counsel should be disqualified because his law firm represented
    Relator in a matter involving a matter factually related to the current case. See: Ex
    A - Declaration of Kelly Brady. If a lawyer works on a matter, "there is an
    irrebuttable presumption that the lawyer obtained confidential information during
    representation." In re Columbia Valley Healthcare Sys., L.P., 
    320 S.W.3d 819
    , 824
    (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). Furthermore, an "attorney's knowledge is imputed
    by law to every other attorney in the firm Nat'l Med. Enters., Inc. v. Godbey, 924
    
    6 S.W.2d 123
    , 131 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). Consequently, there is an
    "irrebuttable presumption that an attorney in a law firm has access to the confidences
    of the clients and former clients of other attorneys in the firm." Id.; see also In re
    Mitcham, 
    133 S.W.3d 274
    , 276 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding). ("For
    attorneys, there is an irrebuttable presumption they gain confidential information on
    every case at the firm where they work (whether they work on them or not)."). In re
    Ruvalcaba 
    2014 WL 508938
    8 (Tex. App – Houston [14th] 2014).
    The information imparted by Relator to James Gillen form the crux of the
    complaint against the Defendants. Relator discussed with Gillen her belief that she
    was not paid properly, that Sharon Howell had disparaged her and finally the
    enforceability of her non-compete agreement with Travel Masters. The meeting as
    documented by Relator’s testimony, declaration and the email correspondence
    establish a conflict that cannot be overcome by Gillen’s testimony. Gillen testified
    that he recalled meeting with Brady on one occasion, but his memory was vague as
    to the exact nature of the conversations.       Gillen does not dispute his prior
    representation of Travel Masters, nor does he dispute his representation of 5 Star
    Travel.
    Additionally, if opposing counsel is permitted to participate, there will be an
    appearance of impropriety because his law firm previously represented Relator in a
    7
    matter closely related to the matter before the Court. Further, the likelihood of
    public suspicion resulting from the impropriety outweighs any social interest that
    will be served by Mr. Anderson’s participation. Specifically, the public is entitled
    to have confidence in the legal profession that allows them to trust the justice system
    without a conflict of interest being allowed to exist on the part of one of the lawyers
    representing a party and then taking the other side of the case.
    Judge Kennedy’s denial of the motion to disqualify can only be explained by
    her complete disregard of Relator’s proof of her conversations and communications
    with Gillen. This is the essence of an abuse of discretion. A clear abuse of
    discretion occurs when an action is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a
    clear and prejudicial error of law.” CSR Ltd. v. Link, 
    925 S.W.2d 591
    , 596
    (Tex.1996).
    CONCLUSION
    For these reasons, Brady respectfully requests this Court upon final
    consideration grant the writ and order Judge Kennedy to vacate her Order and
    disqualify the firm of Gillen & Anderson from its representation of Defendants.
    8
    Respectfully submitted,
    ______________________________
    William S. Hommel, Jr.
    State Bar No. 09934250
    HOMMEL LAW FIRM
    1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
    Tyler, Texas 75703
    (903) 596-7100
    (469) 533-1618 Facsimile
    ATTORNEY FOR KELLY BRADY, RELATOR
    9
    CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
    I hereby certify that this petition complies with the type-volume limitation
    set out in Tex. R. App. P. 9.4 (i)(3). The brief was prepared using Word 2013, and
    contains 1,688 words.
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
    forwarded on December 16, 2015 via electronic mail and facsimile to:
    The Honorable Christi Kennedy
    114th Judicial District Court
    100 N. Broadway
    Smith County Courthouse
    Tyler, Texas 75702
    Roger Anderson
    Gillen & Anderson
    613 Shelley Park Plaza
    Tyler, Texas 75701
    William S. Hommel, Jr.
    Attorney for Relator
    11
    TAB 1
    - -   - \1
    NO . 15-1812-B
    (
    KELLY BRADY                                      §    IN THE DISTRIQT        ~ro. "'rl!lo/Irl l
    §
    VS.                                              §    OF SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
    §
    JKS TRAVEL, INC. d/b/a                           §
    TRAVEL MASTERS AND                               §
    SHARON K. HOWELL                                 §    114TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    ORDER
    On this day came on to be considered Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel,
    and the Court is of the opinion that said Motion is not well taken.
    It is, accordingly, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion to
    Disqualify Opposing Counsel is DENIED.
    SIGNED this    ~ day of 0o~,-.                                 ,2015.
    (}Q4Jvv1l     "
    JUDGE ~-G----
    ORDER-PAGE SOLO
    TAB 2
    TAB 3
    Bill Hommel
    From:                           5starescapes@gmail.com
    Sent:                           Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:35 PM
    To:                             Bill Hommel
    Subject:                        Fw: Fwd: LTGTR Travel, LLC
    Attachments:                    Acknowledgment.pdf; Certificate.pdf; Original_Document.pdf
    See Below.
    KELLY BRADY CTA,DS
    5 STAR ESCAPES
    PO Box 263              Flint TX 75762
    5StarEscapes@gmail.com
    903.710.2628
    The world is your canvas...Let us help create your masterpiece!
    Proudly Affiliated with NEXION and Travel Leaders.
    From: 5StarEscapes
    Sent: Monday, April 13, 2015 2:33 PM
    To: Kelly Brady
    Subject: Fwd: LTGTR Travel, LLC
    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
    From: 5StarEscapes <5starescapes@gmail.com>
    Date: Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 2:06 PM
    Subject: Fwd: LTGTR Travel, LLC
    To: Jim Gillen 
    Hello Jim,
    Lynn's SS number. It is 451‐ 92‐6250.
    1
    Lynn and I want to so thank you for helping us with the LLC and the tax ID
    number.
    You have been a big help!!
    Kelly Brady
    903‐570‐6392
    From: Jim Gillen 
    Date: March 23, 2015 at 8:32:36 AM CDT
    To: "kellyvs1@gmail.com" 
    Subject: FW: LTGTR Travel, LLC
    Good Morning Kelly—
    The LLC has been approved by the Secretary of State.
    At such time as you need to open a bank account for the business, you will
    also need a tax id number. You really need to have the accountant for your
    business obtain this number—he can get it with the attached + Lynn’s
    Social Sec #. If you would rather me obtain it, I can do it if you will get
    Lynn’s SS # for me. I normally prefer accountants to do that part only
    because there are tax elections called for on the form that I am not qualified
    to know. If I do get it, I need to know how many employees you expect to
    have during the first year.
    JIM GILLEN
    GILLEN & ANDERSON, ATTORNEYS
    613 Shelley Park Plaza
    2
    Tyler, TX 75701
    903/581-3861 (Direct Dial)
    903/581-8600 (Main Firm line)
    903/581-8790 (Fax)
    From: Bonnie Brooks
    Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:21 AM
    To: Jim Gillen
    Subject: LTGTR Travel, LLC
    Jim, attached are the Secretary of State’s approval docs for LTGTR Travel, LLC.
    Bonnie Brooks
    Legal Assistant to James B. Gillen, Jr.
    Gillen & Anderson
    613 Shelley Park Plaza
    Tyler, TX 75701
    Phone: (903) 581-8600
    Fax: (903) 581-8790
    Email: bbrooks@gillenanderson.com
    3
    Bill Hommel
    From:                         5starescapes@gmail.com
    Sent:                         Wednesday, September 23, 2015 3:36 PM
    To:                           Bill Hommel
    Subject:                      Fw: Tax id
    Attachments:                  CCE03252015_0001.pdf
    KELLY BRADY CTA,DS
    5 STAR ESCAPES
    PO Box 263             Flint TX 75762
    5StarEscapes@gmail.com
    903.710.2628
    The world is your canvas...Let us help create your masterpiece!
    Proudly Affiliated with NEXION and Travel Leaders.
    From: Jim Gillen
    Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 8:20 AM
    To: 5StarEscapes
    Subject: Tax id
    Kelly—
    Attached is tax id I obtained this morning.
    We will file today online with the Secy of state the dba for 5 Star Escapes. Also, one
    should be filed with our local County Clerk, but that is one we will have to prepare and
    have you sign.
    Anyway, that will not hold you up from doing any and everything you need to do.
    JIM GILLEN
    GILLEN & ANDERSON, ATTORNEYS
    613 Shelley Park Plaza
    Tyler, TX 75701
    903/581-3861 (Direct Dial)
    1
    903/581-8600 (Main Firm line)
    903/581-8790 (Fax)
    2